The fact is, your belief that the life of John Britton was intrinsically more precious than the lives of the thousands of children he murdered for cash on the barrel is erroneous and clouds your thinking.
You guys just can't resist, can you? The more you post, the more you show your cards. As long as you keep comparing Hill's actions to those of an abortionists, you will be righfully labled a Hill supporter and a kook.
My first appearance on this thread, and I'm not familiar with the details of the case. But, why is one a "kook" to compare the actions of Hill and those of abortionists? Both consciously chose to kill people, without remorse. What is the difference?
It seems that that is the fervent hope of you and others who label "kooks" those who don't whole-heartedly condemn the actions of Hill. The shrillness of your hypocritical arguments supporting mass murder of children is telling.
We live in a violent world, and sometimes the only way to get the point across is with violence. Just ask the government. Anyone who says violence never solved anything is a liar.
Perhaps.
What Paul Hill did was wrong. But lets look at the facts.
Paul Hill killed two people. I don't know of any abortionist who has killed that FEW. They usually murder two a day.
Paul Hill killed adults who were not innocent. Abortionists kill innocents every time they do the 'procedure.'
Paul Hill was wrong. But not as wrong as abortionists are.
I'm not attempting to compare Hill to an abortionist. Hill decided, at great personal sacrifice, to use deadly force to prevent a serial killer from murdering more innocent children. An abortionist is a serial murderer who gets paid cash on the barrel to murder helpless children.
There is no useful comparison between the two.
As far as people labelling me, I don't really care.